Opinion; Subjects: BAHRAIN, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.26-01101 (E) 090226 090226
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 104th session, 10–14 November 2025
Opinion No. 72/2025 concerning Abbas Muslem Abdali Abdulhusain
Ali Juma, Ali Husain Ali Naser Hasan Matrook Abdulla, Abdulaziz
Husain J. Alhammadi and Aqeel Muslem Abdali Abdulhusain Ali Juma
(Bahrain)*
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 60/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work, 1 on 31 July 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Bahrain a communication concerning Abbas Muslem
Abdali Abdulhusain Ali Juma, Ali Husain Ali Naser Hasan Matrook Abdulla, Abdulaziz
Husain J. Alhammadi and Aqeel Muslem Abdali Abdulhusain Ali Juma. The Government
replied to the communication on 18 September 2025. The State is a party to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
* Mumba Malila did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
General Assembly
Distr.: General
10 February 2026
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
2
GE.26-01101
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Abbas Muslem Abdali Abdulhusain Ali Juma, born on 16 December 2006, Ali Husain
Ali
Naser Hasan
Matrook Abdulla,
born on 27
January 2009, Abdulaziz
Husain J. Alhammadi, born on 31 May 2009, and Aqeel Muslem Abdali Abdulhusain Ali
Juma, born on 10 November 2008, are nationals of Bahrain. At the time of their arrest, they
were minors who attended school.
(i)
Arrest and detention
a.
Messrs. Abbas Juma and Abdulla
5.
On 26 August 2024, masked officers of the Ministry of the Interior intercepted
Messrs. Abbas Juma and Abdulla and their friends. The officers beat them and forced them
into a vehicle. The officers did not present arrest warrants or reasons for the detention.
6.
Witnesses promptly informed the families about the arrest and that Messrs. Abbas
Juma and Abdulla had been taken to Budaiya Police Station. The families contacted
authorities, but the authorities did not provide any information.
7.
On 27 August 2024, Mr. Abbas Juma was able to call his family. The authorities did
not allow him to disclose his location. The families went to Budaiya Police Station and
learned that Messrs. Abbas Juma and Abdulla were being held there.
8.
The same day, Mr. Abdulla was interrogated, without a lawyer, on accusations of
having participated in unlawful assemblies and having committed arson in August 2024.
Authorities slapped him and pressured him to confess. Later that day, he was able to call his
family.
9.
On 28 August 2024, Messrs. Abbas Juma and Abdulla were brought before the family
and child prosecution service. Mr. Abdulla was not allowed to consult with his lawyer. The
prosecution ordered that Mr. Abdulla be detained for one week pending investigation into a
charge concerning an arson committed on 15 August 2024 and that Mr. Abbas Juma also be
detained for one week pending the investigation of a charge concerning an arson committed
on 26 August 2024.
10.
Between 27 August and 4 September 2024, Mr. Abbas Juma was interrogated at
Budaiya Police Station, without a lawyer or guardian, on accusations of participating in
unlawful assemblies and committing arson. His family could not afford a private lawyer, and
the authorities did not assign him a lawyer. Officers repeatedly beat him and pressured him
to confess. Initially, Mr. Abbas Juma denied all of the accusations against him, but later
confessed.
11.
On 4 September 2024, the prosecution extended the detention of Mr. Abbas Juma and
Mr. Abdulla for another two weeks. The extension of Mr. Abdulla’s detention was based on
coerced confessions. His lawyer was not permitted to be present during the hearing.
12.
Between 4 September and 29 December 2024, Messrs. Abbas Juma and Abdulla were
repeatedly transferred between the Dry Dock Detention Centre and the prosecution service
premises and coerced into confessions in newly opened cases. The charges included seven
cases of arson, one of which also involved the possession of explosives, and one additional
case involving unlawful assembly, gathering with intent to commit a crime or disturb public
order, and the manufacturing of explosives and the possession, distribution and use of such
devices.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
GE.26-01101
3
13.
Mr. Abbas Juma was denied access to his lawyer and his guardian, and his family was
not allowed to visit him; Mr. Abdulla was denied prison visits for over five months following
his arrest. Beginning with the fourth prosecution session, a member of Mr. Abdulla’s family
acted as an intermediary, communicating with the lawyer and relaying information to
Mr. Abdulla.
14.
On 19 September 2024, the Public Prosecution Office extended Mr. Abdulla’s
detention for another two weeks. During this session, his lawyer was only permitted to greet
him. This pattern of extending Mr. Abdulla’s detention every two weeks continued after each
appearance before the prosecution, on the basis of coerced confessions.
15.
Mr. Abdulla did not receive proper dental treatment. Treatment was briefly offered
after a complaint was filed with the Ombudsman and the National Institution for Human
Rights, only to be discontinued; care was limited to pain relief.
16.
On 12 December 2024, the prosecution referred Messrs. Abbas Juma and Abdulla, as
well as Mr. Alhammadi, to the restorative justice court for children on charges concerning
the manufacturing, possession, distribution and use of explosives, arson and unlawful
assembly and rioting – acts allegedly committed on 26 August 2024. Mr. Abbas Juma
continued to be denied access to a lawyer and his guardian.
17.
On 18 December 2024, the Ministry of Justice, Islamic Affairs and Waqf appointed a
lawyer to represent Mr. Abbas Juma. The families of Mr. Abbas Juma and of Mr. Abdulla
were allowed to visit them for the first time on 13 January and 6 February 2025, respectively.
18.
On 27 February 2025, Mr. Abdulla’s family was advised by the authorities that
Mr. Abdulla’s academic records would need to be transferred to an institution affiliated with
the Dry Dock Detention Centre. The family decided not to transfer the records, expecting a
royal pardon to be issued on the occasion of Eid al-Fitr. However, Mr. Abdulla was not
pardoned. He therefore lost an academic year.
19.
Detainees are provided with insufficient and poor-quality food for iftar. The
authorities did not take any action, despite complaints.
20.
On 10 June 2025, both individuals began a hunger strike to protest the denial of their
right to practice their religion. Mr. Abbas Juma and Mr. Abdulla remain in detention.
b.
Mr. Alhammadi
21.
Mr. Alhammadi was arrested at home on the evening of 20 October 2024 by officers
from the criminal investigation directorate, who did not show an arrest or search warrant.
22.
The officers confiscated Mr. Alhammadi’s mobile phone and the apartment’s
surveillance camera. When his family asked for the reason for his arrest, the officers claimed
it was due to “images critical of the Government” posted on a social media account belonging
to him. His phone contained no such images. The officers stated that he would be interrogated
at the criminal investigation directorate premises in Adliya and would return home the
following morning.
23.
Officers then took Mr. Alhammadi to a deserted area behind the Maqaba Police
Station, where they struck him on the head before transferring him to the criminal
investigation directorate premises in Adliya.
24.
On 21 October 2024, the authorities issued a formal summons for Mr. Alhammadi
and delivered it to his family’s home. He was allowed to call his family, but the call was
suddenly cut off.
25.
Between 21 and 23 October 2024, Mr. Alhammadi was interrogated without a lawyer
or guardian. He was held for 48 hours blindfolded and handcuffed. Officers repeatedly beat
him. When his blindfold was removed, an investigator instructed him to focus on photographs
of individuals. Each time he denied knowing the people, officers beat him, coercing him into
falsely confessing that he recognized the individuals.
26.
Mr. Alhammadi’s family had no knowledge of his whereabouts during the
interrogation. The authorities falsely claimed that he was at the Dry Dock Detention Centre,
although he was still being held at the criminal investigation directorate premises.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
4
GE.26-01101
27.
On 23 October 2024, Mr. Alhammadi was transferred to the Roundabout 17 Police
Station, where he was informed of new charges. He was then transferred to the Public
Prosecution Office. The authorities prevented his lawyer from speaking with him.
28.
Mr. Alhammadi denied all charges and refused to sign confessions, noting the lack of
evidence. Nevertheless, the public prosecutor charged him with inciting hatred against the
Government, misuse of telecommunications, assaulting military personnel, possession of
usable explosive devices and arson (two cases). The public prosecutor ordered that he be
detained for a week. Mr. Alhammadi was transferred that same day to the Dry Dock
Detention Centre.
29.
Also that day, after persistent inquiries, his family learned of Mr. Alhammadi’s
whereabouts, and he was allowed to call his family.
30.
On 31 October 2024, the Public Prosecution Office extended Mr. Alhammadi’s
detention for another week, on additional charges of possession, distribution, manufacturing
and use of Molotov cocktails, arson and unlawful assembly and rioting, allegedly committed
on 26 August 2024.
31.
Between 23 October and 29 December 2024, Mr. Alhammadi was repeatedly taken to
the Public Prosecution Office. He was interrogated in relation to six separate cases, allegedly
linked to incidents that had occurred between 24 June and 26 August 2024. Mr. Alhammadi
denied all of the accusations.
32.
On 10 December 2024, a court session was held concerning the charges of misuse of
telecommunications and inciting hatred against the Government. The court ordered
Mr. Alhammadi’s release pending the outcome of the investigation. However, he was not
released, owing to the five other pending cases.
33.
Mr. Alhammadi was then transferred to Budaiya Police Station and subsequently to
the Dry Dock Detention Centre.
34.
On 12 December 2024, the Public Prosecution Office referred Mr. Alhammadi and
four other minors, including Messrs. Abbas Juma and Abdulla, to the restorative justice court
for children, accusing them of the manufacturing, possession, distribution and use of usable
explosive devices, arson and unlawful assembly and rioting, allegedly committed on
26 August 2024.
35.
Mr. Alhammadi’s family was allowed to visit for the first time on 26 January 2025,
more than three months after his arrest. Mr. Alhammadi was pale and visibly fatigued.
36.
Mr. Alhammadi suffers from a jaw condition that requires the use of a special device.
Prison authorities failed to provide the device or offer any medical alternative.
37.
His family filed two formal complaints with both the Ombudsman and the National
Institution for Human Rights – one concerning his alleged torture during interrogation and
another over his deprivation of education – but received no response from either entity.
38.
Prison guards reportedly continually harass Mr. Alhammadi.
c.
Mr. Aqeel Juma
39.
Throughout October 2024, Mr. Aqeel Juma received multiple summons to appear for
questioning at Budaiya Police Station without being given a reason. He complied each time
and was released after questioning.
40.
On 29 October 2024, the Public Prosecution Office issued a summons for Mr. Aqeel
Juma to appear at an investigation session scheduled for 9 a.m. on 31 October 2024 at the
Public Prosecution Office building, on the charges of unlawful assembly and rioting and
arson. As the family did not receive the summons before the scheduled date, neither
Mr. Aqeel Juma nor his family were aware of the session and thus did not attend. The
summons, containing no details about the charges, was discovered four hours after the
session, when a family member found the document outside of the family’s home.
41.
Mr. Aqeel Juma’s family was at home the morning before the session, and had not
received the summons beforehand. Mr. Aqeel Juma and the family member went to the Public
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
GE.26-01101
5
Prosecution Office that afternoon. They were initially told that there were no charges against
Mr. Aqeel Juma. Officials photographed the family member’s identification card, questioned
Mr. Aqeel Juma, had the latter sign his statements and then instructed them both to leave.
42.
On 26 December 2024, the Public Prosecution Office referred Mr. Aqeel Juma and
four others, including Messrs. Abbas Juma, Abdulla and Alhammadi, to the High Criminal
Court. They were accused of arson and unlawful assembly and rioting, allegedly committed
on 24 August 2024. The Public Prosecution Office labelled Mr. Aqeel Juma a “fugitive”.
43.
On 8 January 2025, the High Criminal Court issued a summons for Mr. Aqeel Juma
to appear before it on 14 January 2025. On 9 January 2025, his family received the summons
along with a copy of a referral order from the Public Prosecution Office, which had charged
six individuals, including the four above-mentioned individuals, with arson and unlawful
assembly and rioting, allegedly committed on 24 August 2024. Mr. Aqeel Juma was labelled
in the order as a “fugitive”.
44.
On 14 January 2025, Mr. Aqeel Juma appeared before the High Criminal Court.
During the session, the judge ordered his detention until 21 January 2025, leading to his arrest
in the courtroom without the presentation of any arrest warrant. He was transferred to the
Dry Dock Detention Centre and denied family visits during his entire period of pretrial
detention.
45.
On 21 January 2025, the Public Prosecution Office extended Mr. Aqeel Juma’s
detention another week.
46.
Between 14 and 28 January 2025, Mr. Aqeel Juma was interrogated without a lawyer
or guardian. His family could not afford to hire a lawyer, and the authorities failed to appoint
one. Officers tortured him and pressured him to confess, which he did not do.
47.
In March 2025, the court appointed a lawyer for Mr. Aqeel Juma. His family was
allowed to visit him for the first time on 11 March 2025. His eyeglasses were broken, possibly
because of beatings during the interrogations.
48.
Mr. Aqeel Juma could not continue his technical education, which is not offered in
prison.
49.
On 30 June 2025, the Court of Appeals reduced Mr. Aqeel Juma’s one-year sentence
to six months. He was released on 13 July 2025 after serving his full term.
(ii)
Trial
50.
On 23 December 2024, the trial of Messrs. Abbas Juma, Abdulla and Alhammadi
began before the restorative justice court for children. They were charged with the
manufacturing, possession, distribution and use of usable explosive devices, arson and
unlawful assembly and rioting.
51.
On 29 December 2024, the Public Prosecution Office referred Messrs. Abbas Juma,
Abdulla and Alhammadi to the restorative justice court for children on further charges of
arson and unlawful assembly and rioting. The first hearing in connection with those charges
was held on 30 December 2024.
52.
On 13 January 2025, Mr. Abbas Juma’s family was able to visit him for the first time.
The visit coincided with a sentencing hearing, which he decided to miss in order to see his
family.
53.
The court sentenced the three individuals to six months in prison for the
manufacturing, possession, distribution and use of Molotov cocktails, arson and unlawful
assembly and rioting, allegedly committed on 26 August 2024. Despite Mr. Abbas Juma’s
documented absence, the court recorded the sentence as delivered in his presence.
54.
Mr. Abdulla was denied the opportunity to challenge the evidence, and his coerced
confessions were used against him. Although his lawyer submitted all required pleadings, the
court ignored the defence arguments.
55.
Mr. Alhammadi and his lawyer contested the charges, stating that he could not have
participated in the gathering on 26 August 2024 in Karranah, as he and his family were living
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
6
GE.26-01101
in Hamad Town; they provided video footage proving that Mr. Alhammadi was at home on
the date and time of the alleged incident. The court disregarded the alibi and relied on
confessions extracted through torture.
56.
Once all three individuals were back at the Dry Dock Detention Centre, following the
sentencing, officials presented them with documents to sign, claiming that one of the
documents was for filing an appeal against the verdict. Relying on this assertion, all three
signed.
57.
On 28 January 2025, Mr. Aqeel Juma’s trial began, without a lawyer, as his family
could not afford one and the court did not appoint one for him.
58.
On 11 February 2025, the High Criminal Court sentenced Mr. Abbas Juma, Mr. Aqeel
Juma and Messrs. Abdulla and Alhammadi each to an additional one-year prison term after
convicting them in a second case of unlawful assembly and rioting and arson relating to
burning tires, allegedly committed on 24 August 2024.
59.
During the trial, Mr. Abbas Juma stated that his confessions had been extracted under
torture; nevertheless, the court relied on them. He had not been granted sufficient time or
resources to prepare a defence. The charges were vaguely worded. Although the Ministry of
Justice, Islamic Affairs and Waqf had appointed a lawyer for him, Mr. Abbas Juma received
no legal assistance before, during or after the trial.
60.
Mr. Abbas Juma learned that the number of cases filed against him had increased to
nine, as a new case had been opened against him on 12 December 2024. These involved
charges of rioting during an unlawful assembly, manufacturing usable explosive devices, the
possession, distribution and use of such devices, and gathering with intent to commit crimes
or disturb public security.
61.
Mr. Abdulla was denied the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him, and
his coerced confessions were used against him. Furthermore, the court ignored the defence
arguments.
62.
Mr. Alhammadi and his lawyer were allowed to speak and submit video evidence
showing that he was at home on the dates of the alleged incidents. However, the court ignored
the exculpatory material.
63.
Mr. Aqeel Juma was not given adequate time or resources to prepare for trial and was
unable to present or challenge evidence; furthermore, his conviction was based solely on
coerced confessions made by his friends implicating him. In March 2025, the court appointed
a lawyer for him, and he appealed the sentence.
64.
On 3 March 2025, the restorative justice court for children sentenced Mr. Abbas Juma
and his friends Messrs. Abdulla and Alhammadi to another six months in prison in a third
case, on charges of arson and of unlawful assembly and rioting.
65.
In that trial, confessions obtained under torture and threats were relied on. This
brought Messrs. Abbas Juma and Abdulla to two years of imprisonment; for Mr. Abdulla,
five more cases were still pending trial or referral to court.
66.
Mr. Abdulla was again denied the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him,
and his coerced confessions were used against him. The court again ignored the defence
arguments.
67.
With regard to Mr. Alhammadi, although he and his lawyer were allowed to present
evidence, the court ignored this material and convicted him on the basis of coerced
confessions. This increased his total prison term to two years. With three additional cases
still under investigation by the Public Prosecution Office, his sentence is likely to increase
further.
68.
On 24 March 2025, the Court of Appeals rejected the appeal filed by Messrs. Abbas
Juma, Abdulla and Alhammadi against the six-month sentence issued on 13 January 2025
and added a fine to their sentence. In the case of Mr. Abbas Juma, the Court of Appeals
rejected the appeal in absentia.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
GE.26-01101
7
69.
On 28 April 2025, Messrs. Abdulla, Abbas Juma and Alhammadi had two appeal
hearings regarding sentences handed down on 11 February 2025 and 3 March 2025. The
Court reduced Messrs. Abbas Juma and Alhammadi’s six-month sentences to two months,
reducing, for each, the total prison term to one year and eight months. However, Mr. Abdulla
was denied entry to the courtroom for the appeal hearing for the 3 March 2025 sentence on
the grounds that he had not been convicted in that case – despite having been sentenced to
six months in prison and having filed an appeal. As a result, he was not informed as to
whether his sentence had been upheld or reduced.
70.
On 4 May 2025, during a prison visit, a member of Mr. Abdulla’s family reportedly
raised the issue of Mr. Abdulla having been denied entry to the courtroom during the appeal
session for the 3 March 2025 ruling – despite having been convicted in that case and having
filed an appeal – with an official, who confirmed that the decision of the Court of Appeals
applied to all those convicted, which indicated Mr. Abdulla’s sentence should have been
reduced. When his family requested his release date, the official informed them that it was
set for 28 August 2026, implying that Mr. Abdulla’s sentence remained unchanged and that
his total term remained two years. It is thus uncertain whether his appeal was formally
rejected.
71.
Mr. Abdulla’s appeal hearing concerning the six-month sentence handed down on
11 February 2025 was postponed to 11 May 2025.
72.
An appeal hearing was scheduled for 11 May 2025 concerning the one-year prison
sentence issued on 11 February 2025 against the four individuals on charges of unlawful
assembly, rioting and arson related to the burning of tires on 24 August 2024.
73.
Messrs. Abdulla and Alhammadi were denied entry to a court session under the pretext
that they each had had an “illegal haircut” and were placed in solitary confinement for
24 hours.
74.
On dates unknown, Mr. Alhammadi received two six-month sentences for allegedly
assaulting security personnel with Molotov cocktails on 20 August 2024 and for unlawful
gathering, rioting and making explosives. This brought his total term to two years and eight
months.
75.
On 5 June 2025, Mr. Alhammadi’s full sentence was converted under the alternative
sentencing programme, and his family was informed that he would be released. However, he
later learned that his release had been cancelled due to additional pending cases relating to
allegations of unlawful assembly and arson in Karranah on 26 July 2024 and 11 August 2024.
On 20 June 2025, the Public Prosecution Office referred him to court for both charges. On
30 June 2025, the Court of Appeals reduced his one-year sentence (which had already been
replaced with an alternative sentence on 5 June 2025) to six months, bringing his alternative
sentence to two years and two months.
76.
On 20 June 2025, the Public Prosecution referred Messrs. Abbas Juma and Abdulla
to court on two charges of arson. On 30 June 2025, the Court of Appeals reduced their
one-year sentences (issued on 11 February 2025) to six months, bringing Mr. Abbas Jumma’s
total prison term down to one year and two months and Mr. Abdulla’s down to one year and
six months.
77.
On 21 July 2025, a court session for another arson case was held. Mr. Abdulla’s
lawyer argued that he had not been in Karranah on the date concerned. The session was
postponed to 28 July 2025 to allow for witnesses to be summoned.
(iii)
Legal analysis
78.
In relation to category I, the source argues that all four individuals were denied family
visits for periods ranging from 13 days to five months, and that Messrs. Abbas Juma, Abdulla
and Alhammadi were subjected to incommunicado detention lasting between 5 and 48 hours,
in violation of articles 9 (3) and 37 (c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and
rules 43 (3), 58 (1) (a) and 68 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). Mr. Alhammadi was also subjected to
enforced disappearance during the first 48 hours of detention, contrary to article 9 (4) of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
8
GE.26-01101
79.
Messrs. Abbas Juma, Abdulla and Alhammadi were not brought promptly before a
judge following their arrest, in violation of articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant,
articles 37 (b) and (d) and 40 (2) (b) (ii) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
rule 119 (1) of the Nelson Mandela Rules and principle 11 of the United Nations Basic
Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of
Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court. Moreover, because of their status as
minors, they should have been brought before a judge within 24 hours.
80.
Messrs. Abbas Juma, Abdulla and Alhammadi were subjected to prolonged pretrial
detention, with Mr. Abbas Juma and Mr. Abdulla being held for five months without judicial
review, in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 9 (4),
14 (3) (c) and (4) of the Covenant and articles 37 (d) and 40 (2) (b) (iii) of the Convention on
the Rights of the Child.
81.
In relation to category II, the source argues that the above-mentioned individuals were
arrested and prosecuted for participating in peaceful pro-Palestine demonstrations,
expressing their political views and exercising their rights to freedom of opinion and
expression and peaceful assembly.
82.
The source argues that the detention is arbitrary under category III, as the four
individuals were interrogated without the presence of a lawyer or a guardian, contrary to
article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant, articles 12 (2), 37 (d) and 40 (2) (b) (ii) of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child and rule 61 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, as well as
article 20 (c) of the Constitution and article 66 of the Restorative Justice Law for Children
and their Protection from Maltreatment.
83.
Furthermore, Messrs. Abbas Juma and Aqeel Juma were not provided with assistance
from State-appointed lawyers, in violation of article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant and
rule 119 (2) of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
84.
All four individuals were subjected to torture, such as beatings on various parts of the
body, blindfolding, verbal humiliation and threats of further violence, to coerce confessions.
These acts violate the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 7
and 10 (1) of the Covenant, article 37 (a) and (c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
rule 1 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, articles 19 (d) and 20 (a) and (d) of the Constitution and
the Penal Code.
85.
Confessions extracted from Messrs. Abbas Juma, Abdulla and Alhammadi were later
used against them in court, contrary to article 15 of the Convention against Torture, article
40 (2) (b) (iv) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and article 19 (d) of the
Constitution.
86.
Messrs. Abbas Juma, Abdulla and Aqeel Juma were not afforded adequate facilities
to prepare their defence and were denied the opportunity to effectively challenge the evidence
against them, in violation of article 14 (3) (b) and (e) of the Covenant and articles 12 (2) and
40 (2) (b) (iii) and (iv) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
87.
Moreover, Mr. Abbas Juma was denied access to his State-appointed lawyer, in
violation of article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant, article 40 (2) (b) (ii) of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child and article 20 (c) of the Constitution.
88.
The court failed to appoint a lawyer for Mr. Aqeel Juma, despite his inability to afford
one, violating article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant, rule 119 (2) of the Nelson Mandela Rules,
article 40 (2) (b) (ii) and (iii) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and article 20 (c),
(e) and (f) of the Constitution.
89.
In the trials of Messrs. Abdulla and Alhammadi, the court disregarded the defence
pleadings. In the case of Mr. Alhammadi, exculpatory footage was summarily dismissed,
violating article 14 (1) of the Covenant and article 40 (2) (b) (iv) of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child.
90.
Messrs. Abbas Juma, Abdulla and Alhammadi risk increases to their prison terms
given that there are cases still pending in which they were also coerced into giving
confessions and subjected to inhumane treatment during interrogation.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
GE.26-01101
9
91.
All four individuals were subjected to food deprivation during their detention, in
violation of article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 7 and 10 (1) of
the Covenant, article 37 (a) and (c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, rule 22 (1)
of the Nelson Mandela Rules and article 19 (d) of the Constitution.
92.
They were denied the right to education following sentencing, in violation of article 26
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 28 (1) of the Convention on the Rights
of the Child, rule 104 of the Nelson Mandela Rules and article 7 of the Constitution. They
were also denied adequate medical care, in violation of article 25 (1) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
article 7 of the Covenant, rules 24, 27 and 30 of the Nelson Mandela Rules and articles 5 (a)
and 8 of the Constitution.
93.
The verbal degradation and politically charged insults to which the individuals were
subjected to are indicative of targeting on the basis of real or perceived political affiliation.
Such treatment constitutes discrimination, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant, article 2 of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child and rule 2 of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
(b)
Response from the Government
94.
On 31 July 2025, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to
the Government under its regular communication procedure. The Working Group requested
the Government to provide, by 29 September 2025, detailed information about the current
situation of the four individuals. The Working Group also requested the Government to
clarify the legal provisions justifying their detention, as well as the compatibility of the
detention with the State’s obligations under international human rights law and in particular
with regard to the treaties ratified by the State.
95.
In its response dated 18 September 2025, the Government submits that freedom of
opinion and expression is guaranteed under article 23 of the Constitution. No individual is
prosecuted for peacefully expressing his or her opinion and all cases brought before the courts
are subject to independent judicial proceedings.
96.
Arrests are carried out in accordance with valid legal grounds and procedures
established in national legislation and in line with the State’s international obligations. Those
arrested can exercise all their legal rights, including the right to seek the assistance of a
lawyer, to inform their family of their whereabouts and to be brought before the judicial
authority. Bahrain categorically rejects any allegations of torture or ill-treatment. There are
independent national redress mechanisms for receiving and investigating complaints.
97.
The source’s allegations are not based on facts and do not correspond to the reality of
legal practices. A review of the official records shows that arrest warrants were issued and
that the individuals were presented to the Public Prosecution Office without delay.
98.
Article 8 (a) of the Constitution guarantees the right to healthcare, and article 28 of
Law No. 18 of 2014 stipulates that governmental health institutions are to provide free
healthcare to inmates and remand prisoners.
99.
Mr. Abbas Jumma was caught in flagrante delicto on 26 August 2024 and arrested on
27 August 2024. He was brought before the Public Prosecution Office (terrorism crimes
prosecution unit). As he was a minor, women police officers recorded his statements. The
medical examination did not confirm any visible injuries.
100.
He did not allege torture during his interrogation by the Public Prosecution Office, but
he filed a complaint with the general secretariat for grievances, which in turn referred his
allegation to the Special Investigation Unit. The case is still under investigation. A lawyer
was appointed for him at the State’s expense during the trial.
101.
Mr. Abbas Jumma was examined by the Public Prosecution Office and no visible
injuries were found. When asked if he had any injuries that were not visible, he replied in the
negative. A forensic doctor found no injuries or physical disabilities.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
10
GE.26-01101
102.
Mr. Abbas Jumma denied having been deprived of communication with his family
and of his rights to practise his religion and to medical care. He received medical care at the
correctional centre.
103.
He did not submit any request to complete his studies. Article 86 of Law No. 4 of
2021 guarantees the right of children to continue their education in accordance with the
regulations and procedures issued under Law No. 18 of 2014.
104.
Mr. Abdulla was arrested in flagrante delicto on 26 August 2024 and was brought
before the Public Prosecution Office (terrorism crimes prosecution unit) for interrogation. A
State lawyer was appointed for him during the trial. Women police officers recorded his
statements. He was taken to a clinic, but the resulting report did not confirm any visible
injuries.
105.
Mr. Abdulla did not allege torture during his interrogation by the Public Prosecution
Office, and the Special Investigation Unit did not receive any complaints. He was examined
by the Public Prosecution Office and no visible injuries were found. A forensic doctor found
no injuries or physical disabilities.
106.
Mr. Abdulla received continual treatment, as confirmed by official records. He filed
a complaint with the general secretariat for grievances, alleging that he was being denied
education. The secretariat stated that he had submitted the complaint after the deadline. His
family was informed of this, and it was confirmed that the deadline had passed when they
contacted the Ministry of Education about this matter.
107.
Mr. Alhammadi was arrested in connection with another case and brought before the
Public Prosecution Office for interrogation on 12 November 2024. A State lawyer was
appointed for him during his trial.
108.
Mr. Alhammadi was examined and no visible injuries were found. When asked if he
had any injuries that were not visible, he replied in the negative. He did not allege torture
during his interrogation by the Public Prosecution Office, but he filed a complaint with the
general secretariat for grievances, which in turn referred his allegation to the Special
Investigation Unit. The case was closed given the lack of evidence.
109.
Mr. Alhammadi was taken to the public security clinic, but the report did not confirm
any visible injuries. He received continual treatment, as confirmed by official records.
110.
No arrest warrant had previously been issued against Mr. Aqeel Juma, but a warrant
for his arrest and appearance was issued by the Public Prosecution Office on 5 December
2024. Pursuant to the court decision taken at the hearing on 14 January 2025, he was arrested
at that hearing, which he was attending in accordance with a prior summons.
111.
As article 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that the summons to appear
in court is to contain the charge and the provisions of the law that provide for the penalty, the
claim that the allegation was not mentioned in the summons is unfounded in law.
112.
The verdict was enforced against Mr. Aqeel Juma in accordance with article 219 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. A State lawyer was appointed for him during the trial. He
was released on 13 July 2025 after serving his sentence.
(c)
Further comments from the source
113.
The source states that the Government fails to specify when arrest warrants and court
detention orders were issued, what they contained, whether they were presented to the
detained minors at the time of arrest and whether they contained explanations of the charges.
The response ignores the factual allegations and instead makes broad claims of legality.
2.
Discussion
114.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
115.
In determining whether the four individuals’ detention was arbitrary, the Working
Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary
issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international
requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
GE.26-01101
11
rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the
Government that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the
source’s allegations.2
116.
Following Mr. Aqeel Juma’s release on 13 July 2025, the Working Group has the
option of filing the case, in conformity with paragraph 17 (a) of its methods of work.
However, it decided to render the present opinion in respect of all detainees, in conformity
with paragraph 15 of its methods of work. In making this decision, the Working Group
considers that: (a) Mr. Aqeel Juma’s case raises grave concerns about the pattern of
deprivation of liberty in the child justice system of Bahrain; (b) the circumstances in which
he was detained were serious and warrant attention as he was a legal minor at the time of
arrest; (c) he was deprived of his liberty for six months; (d) he may be entitled to remedies
and reparations; (e) the Government has submitted its response, which merits the Working
Group’s appraisal; and (f) the other three detainees remain deprived of liberty.
(a)
Category I
117.
The Working Group will first consider whether there have been violations under
category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without any legal basis being invoked.
118.
The Government submission that Messrs. Abbas Juma, Abdulla and Alhammadi were
either arrested in flagrante delicto or in connection with another case does not explain what
reasons for their arrest or charges against them were given to them by the arresting authorities
and how much time elapsed before they were brought before the Public Prosecution Office.
The Government asserts compliance with procedural and international human rights law
without providing a detailed explanation about the observance of that law in the present cases.
The Working Group therefore finds violations of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant, article 37 (b) of the Convention on
the Rights of the Child and rules 7 (b) and 119 (1) of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
119.
The source submits that Messrs. Abbas Juma, Abdulla and Alhammadi were subjected
to incommunicado detention lasting between 5 and 48 hours, which prevented them from
challenging the legality of their detention. The Government claims that the laws ensure that
detainees receive visits and are able to communicate with their families and legal
representatives but fails to demonstrate, through, for example, a list of dates and times of
visits or phone calls, the application of those laws in the present cases. The Working Group
therefore finds that the resulting denial of fundamental rights under articles 6 and 8 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 2 (3) and 16 of the Covenant, principles 15
and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment and rules 43 (3), 58 (1) and 68 of the Nelson Mandela Rules
undermined the legal basis for their detention.
120.
Moreover, in accordance with principle 9 and guideline 8 of the United Nations Basic
Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of
Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, persons deprived of their liberty have the
right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice, at any time during their detention,
including immediately after the moment of apprehension, and must be promptly informed of
this right upon apprehension. Access to legal counsel should not be unlawfully or
unreasonably restricted.3
121.
Mr. Alhammadi was disappeared during the first 48 hours of detention, in violation
of the prohibition of enforced disappearance as defined in the third preambular paragraph of
the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and article 2
of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance. The Working Group recalls that several international and regional courts and
human rights bodies have recognized that the prohibition of enforced disappearance is a
2 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
3 See also opinions No. 40/2020, para. 29; No. 84/2020, para. 43; and No. 53/2022, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
12
GE.26-01101
peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens). 4 In addition, the failure to provide
essential information concerning the whereabouts of Mr. Alhammadi violated article 9 (4) of
the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
122.
The Working Group recalls that the four detainees, who were minors at the time,
should have been brought promptly before a judge following their arrest, within 24 hours –
the standard of customary international law applicable to children, as affirmed by the
Committee on the Rights of the Child.5 The Government asserts that the individuals were
brought before the Public Prosecution Office, which cannot be considered an independent
judicial body for this purpose. The Working Group therefore finds violations of articles 3, 8
and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (1) and (3) of the Covenant.
123.
The Government further submits that the Public Prosecution Office approved and
continued to extend the pretrial detention, which should be the exception rather than the rule.
For the reasons discussed above, the Public Prosecution Office cannot provide meaningful
judicial review of the legality of detention. Nor did the Government provide evidence that
measures less intrusive than pretrial detention had been considered. This violated articles 3,
8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 (1) and (4) of the Covenant
and principle 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form
of Detention or Imprisonment.
124.
The Working Group concludes that the deprivation of liberty of Messrs. Abbas Juma,
Abdulla and Alhammadi lacks a legal basis and is thus arbitrary under category I, and that
the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Aqeel Juma lacked a legal basis and was thus arbitrary under
category I.
(b)
Category II
125.
The Working Group will now examine whether the deprivation of liberty of the four
individuals is arbitrary under category II, in relation to which the source submits that their
arrest, detention and conviction stemmed from the legitimate exercise of their fundamental
rights that are guaranteed by the Covenant and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and were in retaliation for their public criticism of government policy.
126.
The source submits that the four individuals, all of whom were minors, were detained
for participating in peaceful pro-Palestine demonstrations and expressing their political views
in the exercise of their right to freedom of expression, assembly and association. The
Government accused them of using Molotov cocktails and other violent acts, but it failed to
provide detailed information or evidence to substantiate its allegations.
127.
The Human Rights Committee has recognized freedom of opinion and of expression
as the foundation stone for every free and democratic society, and the right of peaceful
assembly, together with other related rights, as constituting the very foundation of a system
of participatory governance based on democracy, human rights, the rule of law and
pluralism.6 It has reiterated that freedom of expression includes the right of individuals to
criticize or openly and publicly evaluate their Governments without fear of interference or
punishment.7 Even statements considered unacceptable, disrespectful and in very bad taste
by the authorities are entitled to protection.8
4 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, Judgment, 22 September 2006,
paras. 84, 93 and 128; A/HRC/45/13/Add.3, para. 9, and annex, para. 7; Committee on Enforced
Disappearances and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, joint statement
on so-called “short-term enforced disappearances” (CED/C/11), fourth preambular paragraph; and
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Guidelines on the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearances in Africa, tenth preambular paragraph.
5 General comment No. 24 (2019), para. 90.
6 General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 2; and general comment No. 37 (2020), para. 1.
7 CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002, para. 6.7.
8 Opinions No. 10/2018, para. 63; No. 61/2018, para. 56; No. 14/2020, para. 65; and No. 43/2020,
para. 74.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
GE.26-01101
13
128.
Restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly and association are permissible only
when they meet the conditions listed in articles 19 (3), 21 and 22 (2) of the Covenant.
Limitations must not only have legal basis but should also be necessary and proportionate in
achieving legitimate aims in a democratic society.
129.
The Working Group, in its deliberation No. 9, confirms that the notion of “arbitrary”
stricto sensu includes both the requirement that a particular form of deprivation of liberty is
taken in accordance with the applicable law and procedure and that it is proportional to the
aim sought, reasonable and necessary.9 With regard to the application of the principle of
proportionality, the Working Group has applied the test of: (a) whether the objective of the
measure is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a protected right; (b) whether the
measure is rationally connected to the objective; (c) whether a less intrusive measure could
have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objective; and
(d) whether, balancing the severity of the measure’s effects on the rights of the persons to
whom it applies against the importance of the objective, to the extent that the measure will
contribute to its achievement, the former outweighs the latter.10
130.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Committee has expressed concern
about the serious restrictions imposed on freedom of expression and the large number of
arrests and prosecutions of individuals criticizing State authorities or political figures in
Bahrain, and about reports that the Government regularly avails itself of legal provisions
making assemblies illegal to disperse protests violently and arrest activists, human rights
defenders and members of the opposition.11 The Committee on the Rights of the Child has
also expressed deep concern that children can be arrested for participating in public
demonstrations or for insulting and criticizing public officials, and has urged the Government
to ensure full respect for the right of all children, including child human rights defenders, to
freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly as guaranteed by the Convention
on the Rights of the Child.12
131.
In the present cases, the source has established prima facie cases that the deprivation
of liberty resulted from the exercise by the four individuals of their rights and freedoms, but
the Government has provided no legitimate aim or objective that may justify interference
with those rights and freedoms. The Working Group recalls that it has identified a pattern of
harassment against peaceful protesters by the authorities and found their deprivation of
liberty arbitrary under category II in Bahrain.13 United Nations human rights experts have
also expressed concerns about the Government’s persecution of human rights defenders,
including legal minors, for the legitimate exercise of their rights and freedoms.14
132.
For these reasons, the Working Group concludes that the deprivation of liberty of the
four minors resulted from the exercise of their right to freedom of expression, assembly and
association, contrary to articles 19 and 20 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and articles 19 (1) and (2), 21 and 22 (1) of the Covenant. The actions for which they were
deprived of their liberty also constituted the exercise of their right to freedom of thought and
their right to take part in the conduct of public affairs – pursuant to which citizens have the
right to exert influence through public debate and dialogue with their representatives or
through their capacity to organize themselves15 – under articles 18 and 21 (1) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and articles 18 (1) and 25 (a) of the Covenant.
9 A/HRC/22/44, sect. III, para. 61.
10 Opinions No. 54/2015, para. 89; No. 41/2017, para. 86; No. 56/2017, para. 51; No. 58/2017, para. 48;
No. 76/2017, para. 68; No. 82/2018, para. 38; No. 87/2018, para. 64; No. 32/2020, para. 49;
No. 89/2020, para. 63; No. 92/2020, para. 63; No. 25/2021, para. 57; and No. 59/2024, para. 53.
11 CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1, paras. 53 and 55.
12 CRC/C/BHR/CO/4-6, paras. 23 and 24.
13 Opinions No. 65/2022, para. 103; No. 2/2023, para. 90; and No. 74/2023, para. 140.
14 See communications BHR 3/2020, BHR 3/2022, BHR 2/2024 and BHR 3/2024. Available from
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments.
15 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 25 (1996), para. 8. See also Human Rights
Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), paras. 11 and 20; and Declaration on the Right and
Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally
Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, article 8.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
14
GE.26-01101
133.
The Working Group thus finds the four individuals’ deprivation of liberty to be
arbitrary, falling within category II.
(c)
Category III
134.
Given its finding that the deprivation of liberty of Messrs. Abbas Juma, Abdulla and
Alhammadi is, and that of Mr. Aqeel Juma was, arbitrary under category II, the Working
Group wishes to emphasize that no trial should have taken place. However, they were tried,
convicted and imprisoned. In the light of the above, the Working Group will now consider
whether the alleged violations of the right to a fair trial and due process were grave enough
to give their deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character, such that it falls within category III.
135.
The four individuals have been subjects of multiple investigations, trials and
convictions that appear designed to keep them deprived of their liberty. The Working Group
expresses concern at a similar pattern of multiple criminal cases against legal minors, also
involving allegations of confessions extracted through torture, incommunicado detention and
denial of legal counsel, in Bahrain in recent years.16
136.
The source submits that the four individuals did not have access to lawyers at all stages
of their detention. The Government has stated that a lawyer was appointed for each of them
at the State’s expense “during the trial” but is silent about their legal counsel during the
critical pretrial investigation. The Public Prosecution Office had asked about the matter, but
no action was taken until the trial stage. In Mr. Abbas Juma’s case, the Ministry of Justice,
Islamic Affairs and Waqf formally appointed a lawyer, but he received no legal assistance
before, during or after the trial. Therefore, even by the Government’s own admission, there
was a violation of articles 3, 9, 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
articles 9 (1) and 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant and articles 12 (2), 37 (b) and (d) and
40 (2) (b) (ii) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Working Group emphasizes
that every child deprived of his or her liberty has the right to prompt access to legal and other
appropriate assistance under article 37 (d) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
137.
The source further submits, and the Government has not refuted with convincing
evidence, that Messrs. Abbas Juma, Abdulla and Alhammadi were subjected to physical and
psychological torture to extract confessions, negating the presumption of innocence. The
authorities also failed to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation and provide redress
even after they received complaints. The Working Group therefore finds breaches of
articles 5, 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 7, 10 (1)
and 14 (1), (2) and (3) (g) of the Covenant.
138.
The Working Group expresses concern at the failure of courts to adequately address
the arguments and evidence submitted by Messrs. Abdulla and Alhammadi’s lawyers.
Although his lawyer submitted all required pleadings, the court convicted Mr. Abdulla on the
basis of his coerced confession. Mr. Alhammadi provided a credible alibi, but the court
disregarded it and instead relied on Mr. Alhammadi’s coerced confession as evidence.
139.
Judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they
are based; this obligation presupposes that parties to judicial proceedings can expect to
receive a specific and explicit reply to the arguments that are decisive for the outcome of
those proceedings. 17 The failure to meaningfully consider the arguments and evidence
submitted by the defendant or to provide plausible reasons for not doing so violates the right
to a fair hearing and the principles of equality of arms, the presumption of innocence,
individual responsibility and appropriateness of the punishment. The lack of a reasoned
judgment further constitutes a breach of article 14 (5) of the Covenant, as it effectively
prevents prospective appellants from usefully exercising any available right of appeal.18
16 Opinions No. 25/2023, No. 47/2023, No. 16/2024 and No. 40/2024.
17 Opinion No. 38/2025, paras. 96–99. See also European Court of Human Rights, Moreira Ferreira v.
Portugal (No. 2), Application No. 19867/12, Judgment, 11 July 2017, para. 84; and Council of
Europe/European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human
Rights: Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb) (2014), paras. 198 and 199.
18 Opinion No. 38/2025, para. 98. See also Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, Application No. 12945/87,
Judgment, 16 December 1992, para. 33.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
GE.26-01101
15
140.
Given the above observations, the Working Group concludes that the numerous
violations of the right to a fair trial and due process are of such gravity as to give the four
individuals’ deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character that falls within category III.
(d)
Category V
141.
In the discussion above, the Working Group observes a systematic denial of the
freedom of thought, expression, assembly and association and of due process and fair trial
rights, which appears to be representative of the treatment faced by political dissidents,
including young protesters.
142.
The Working Group has established that the detention of the four minors resulted from
the legitimate exercise of their rights and freedoms under international law. When detention
results from the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong presumption that
the detention also constitutes a violation of international law on the ground of discrimination
based on political or other views.19 The Government failed to rebut this presumption with
credible evidence.
143.
The Working Group also refers to its own case law and the concerns expressed by
other special procedures, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Rights of
the Child, cited above in relation to the finding of arbitrary deprivation of liberty under
category II, that indicate a widespread pattern of arbitrary arrest and detention based on
political opinion in Bahrain.
144.
The Working Group finds that the four individuals were deprived of liberty on
discriminatory grounds, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.
(e)
Concluding remarks
145.
The Working Group is concerned by the severity of the physical and psychological
torture and the denial of adequate medical care alleged by the four individuals and the
ongoing impact of the injuries. The Working Group finds violations of article 25 (1) of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant.
146.
The Working Group also expresses concern at the denial of the right of
Messrs. Alhammadi and Aqeel Juma to continue their education in detention, which was in
violation of article 26 (1) and (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and rule 104
of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
147.
The present case is one of a number of cases brought before the Working Group in
recent years concerning arbitrary deprivation of liberty in Bahrain.20 The Working Group
remains concerned that this might indicate a widespread or systematic practice of arbitrary
detention in Bahrain. The Working Group underlines that States have the obligation not to
engage in acts that could constitute crimes against humanity, and to prevent and punish them
if they are committed.
148.
The Working Group would welcome the opportunity, at the Government’s earliest
convenience, to conduct a visit to Bahrain to engage with the Government in a constructive
manner and to offer its assistance in addressing its serious concerns regarding instances of
arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
3.
Disposition
149.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Abbas Muslem Abdali Abdulhusain Ali Juma, Ali
Husain Ali Naser Hasan Matrook Abdulla, Abdulaziz Husain J. Alhammadi and
Aqeel Muslem Abdali Abdulhusain Ali Juma, being in contravention of articles 2, 3,
19 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 43; No. 13/2018, para. 34; No. 59/2019, para. 79; No. 39/2024, para. 69;
and No. 51/2024, para. 117.
20 See, for example, opinions No. 12/2013, No. 37/2014, No. 23/2015, No. 55/2016, No. 13/2018,
No. 73/2019, No. 5/2020, No. 4/2021 and No. 40/2024.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/72
16
GE.26-01101
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (1), 18, 19, 20 (1), 25 (1) and 26 (1) and (2) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and (3), 7, 9 (1), (2), (3) and (4), 10 (1),
14 (1), (2), (3) (b), (d) and (g) and (5), 16, 18 (1), 19 (1) and (2), 21, 22 (1) and 26 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
150.
The Working Group requests the Government of Bahrain to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of the four individuals without delay and bring it into conformity with
the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
151.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Messrs. Abbas Juma, Abdulla and
Alhammadi immediately and accord all four individuals an enforceable right to compensation
and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
152.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the four
individuals and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of
their rights.
153.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
154.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Messrs. Abbas Juma, Abdulla, Alhammadi have been released and, if
so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to the four
individuals;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
the four individuals and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Bahrain with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
155.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
156.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the
above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present
opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up
to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.
157.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.21
[Adopted on 14 November 2025]
21 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.